555 So. 2d 324 - Austin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited
9 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Skelton v. City of Birmingham · 447 So. 2d 199 - Willis v. State · 401 So. 2d 204 - Ferguson v. State · 401 So. 2d 191 - Nobis v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`Looking to the entire oral charge, we find that the objectionable character of the portion objected to was cured and that the objection advanced on appeal is not well taken. The misleading quality of the court's instruction is self-correcting when considered in the context of the entire oral charge when the charge is considered as a whole. And when each instruction is considered in connection with the others. We think it a reasonable assumption that the jury took a common sense view of the instruction and gave to them their plainly apparent meaning.'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Such a charge should rarely, if ever, be given, for it tends to imply that the State's evidence should be given more weight and credence than the defendant's evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.